Why was my page declined?

• SSangeertha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Puviarasu Muthusamy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@SSangeertha: Hello, S. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TonyPizarro (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I've requested assistance because this article is simulor to other Dj articles on Wikipedia TonyPizarro (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyPizarro: Hello, Tony. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best sources of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewers who looked at it. You can find their names and Talk page links in the "decline boxes" near the top of your submission. But I did take a quick look at it myself and found that you've provided no evidence that the subject has achieved encyclopedic notability. Blogs, the subject's own website and things written by the subject do not provide evidence of notability and you would do better by providing links to mainstream publications (e.g., the Los Angeles Times or Billboard) that have discussed the subject in depth. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

@TonyPizarro: I second everything NewYorkActuary wrote. It is natural to learn by and reason from example, but it's safer to reason from official policies and guidelines. The essay "Other stuff exists" may make it clear why. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high-quality and low-quality content. The argument that articles exist that don't meet the policies and guidelines, so more such articles should be created, is not one that will convince any experienced editors. If you use an example, be sure to use one from the best content Wikipedia has, such as Sasha (Welsh DJ) or DJ AM. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Eboyd42 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Football Power Index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I currently am writing a WIKI page for ESPN's Football Power Index (FPI). It appears that in order for the FPI page to be created I need to provide additional sources that are not from the source of the idea (ESPN). Are you looking for other views of FPI, comments/criticisms of FPI, or something else? I want to provide as much detail as I can, but there is not much information on the definition of FPI that is outside of ESPN. I am happy to provide any coverage needed, just need a little clarity.

Thanks so much! EvanEboyd42 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eboyd42: Hello, Evan. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the person who reviewed it. I see that you've already reached out to the most recent reviewer and I trust you'll get a response from them soon. In the meantime, you've got the right idea when you suggest "looking for other views of FPI" and "comments/criticisms of FPI". If there is indeed not much discussion of the index by anyone other than its creator, then it is unlikely to merit a stand-alone article. Conceivably, however, some of your material might find a home in the article on ESPN. If you wish to pursue that approach, you can start by opening up a discussion at Talk:ESPN. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuno Kincaid (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sogrape Vinhos Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page Sogrape is of the Group company (Sogrape Original Legacy Wines) wich has several other companies (Bodgas LAN in spain, Finca Flichman in Argentina, Los Boldos in Chile, Framingham in New Zealand, Evaton in USA, etc.) and this page if for the Sogrape Vinhos Portugal wich is one of the companies that is hold by Sogrape Original Legacy wines

@Nuno Kincaid: Hello, Nuno. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I see that you've already reached out to one of the reviewers and I'm sure you'll get a response from them soon. If you don't hear from them in a day or so, feel free to ask again here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I want create Wikipedia article of Mr. Rossi Looks for Happiness, but there is a page and said:

″The article that you're looking for doesn't exist.

You can create it, but...

• Before you create an article, you should read Your first Wikipedia article.
• New to Wikipedia? See the contributing to Wikipedia page for everything you need to know to get started.
• Need interactive help? You can ask questions at the Teahouse, help desk or through live chat.

There are different ways to edit Wikipedia:

Sandbox Ready to try editing? You can experiment in your own sandbox to get a feel for editing Wikipedia. This is a great place to start without affecting live articles. Start editing

Improve Wikipedia needs your help. Pick small editing tasks from a list, such as fixing spelling and grammar. Learn by making improvements to existing articles. Start helping

Article wizard If you already have experience with editing, you can use our article wizard to create new articles. In just a few steps, you'll be on your way to contributing to Wikipedia. Start creating″

What can I do for create the Wikipedia article of Mr. Rossi Looks for Happiness? Please help me.

ML8 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ML8: Hello, ML. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. I'm not sure what to add to the guidance that you've reproduced here. If you have never before created an article on Wikipedia, then you really should read WP:Your first article. And you probably want to work through our WP:Tutorial to learn the basic techniques that are used to craft an article. After that, when you feel you're ready to go, return to the page that you already found and click the link to the Article Wizard. Happy editing! NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your advice, but it does not go on. Every time I click on red writing (pages do not exist), it returns to the page I dropped over. I don' t know how to do. ML8 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ML8: Hello again, ML. Sorry to see you're having problems. But I'm very puzzled as to what's going on here. I checked your contribution history and found that you have succeeded in creating both a sandbox page (in your User space), as well as a Draft. You've already submitted the draft for review (and had it declined). And the User space sandbox has a button that you can click when you are ready to submit it for review. Why don't you simply start editing one of those two pages to add the new content? NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, tell me something, but with Wikipedia:New user landing page how do I create a page? Wikipedia:New user landing page always appears when I want to create a page. ML8 (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ML8: New users are no longer allowed to create pages directly in article space. Using the article wizard, you may create drafts, which will be published to article space if they are acceptable. Or you may gain experience by improving existing articles. When your account has been open a certain number of days and you have made a certain number of edits (the exact number depends on circumstances, see WP:ACTRIAL), you will be able to create articles. If, however, you create articles that are unacceptable, they are likely to be deleted, and if you do so persistently you might lose your editing privileges. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much for find article wizard for create drafts, but if I want published from a drafts to article in my self what can I do? --ML8 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SPARNOLD (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Steven Skyler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Steven Skyler used to have a Wiki page, until his former manager deleted it out of spite. I'm working with him, this is his account, to try and get one back up and running. As far as I can tell, I have WAY more in the way of sourcing and citations than his previous page had, so, I'm no sure what else needs to be added/done in way of proving he should have another page, or, if that isn't an option, getting his old page reinstated.

SPARNOLD (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPARNOLD: Hello, Sparnold. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. It would be very unusual for a single person to delete an existing article, whether "out of spite" or for some other reason. Could you provide more detail on that (it will be relevant if you truly want to get the old page restored). As for the new version, the best sources of information as to why the submission was declined will be the reviewers who looked at it. You'll find their names and Talk page links in the "decline boxes" near the top of your submission. I hope this response was helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SPARNOLD The previous article about Skyler was deleted following the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Steven Skyler, it was not done by a single editor acting on a whim (or spite). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Baronplotn (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

THEN TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING ASSISTANCE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}} As a former association publishing executive and much-read author of eight trade books and hundreds of other pieces, mainly on writing and expressiveness, I submitted a brief biography for an entry on myself. It was declined owing to lack of evidence of notability. What kind of evidence would be persuasive? Should I include a bibliography of my major works? Baronplotn (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baronplotn (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Baronplotn. Firstly, WP:Autobiographies are extremely frowned upon on Wikipedia. Please read this attached guideline for more information. Secondly, you need reliable, secondary sources. You provided a link to a Google search (not a source), your website (not secondary) and Wikitionary and English Wikipedia links, which are not proper sources, per WP:USERGEN. Please fix these issues before resubmitting for review. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TheGalaxyMan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kornelija Slunjski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking assistance as the page I created is being rejected- I don’t understand why as I’ve attached numerous references, the article is not written in promotional and the subject has notability.

Please let me know what can I do to have this article approved.

Thank you!

TheGalaxyMan (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheGalaxyMan (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGalaxyMan: Hello, GalaxyMan. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I see that you've already gotten this question answered at our Teahouse and by one of the two administrators who deleted the main-space version of the article. Both responders gave you good advice. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BhushanWikipedian (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:EON IT Park,Kharadi. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, there please help me to improve my article, EON IT Park, Kharadi that I submitted yesterday (15/11/17) but it gets a decline. So, please help me so that I can improve and resubmit it. Thank you!BhushanWikipedian (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BhushanWikipedian: Hello, Bhushan. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best sources of information as to why your submission was declined, and how it might be improved, will be the reviewers who already looked at it. You can find their names and Talk page links in the "decline boxes" near the top of your submission. But before posting here, I took a quick look at it and found that I too would have declined it, and for the same reason. An office park for which little more can be said other than that it exists is not likely to have an article on Wikipedia. And the fact that you chose to list the tenants of that park, along with links to their web pages, adds a substantial element of promotionalism to the submission. In all, if you can not demonstrate that the park has been the subject of in-depth discussion by reliable independent sources, it is unlikely that an article on the park will ever be published here on Wikipedia. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary:Thank you NewYorkActuary for your guidance.I try to improve my article so that it meets the criteria and please guide me further if any issue.Thank you! BhushanWikipedian (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Holly1688 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Holly1688/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

So dear manager, may I know how I can post an article successfully in Wikipedia? Because what I post always be refused with the reason that it has already existed. But I am sure it doesn't.

Holly1688 (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Holly1688: Hello, dear Holly. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Your submission consists of just a few sentences, none of them sourced and one of them written in the first person (i.e., "we"). To me, it simply looks like an attempt to convince people that they should use galvanized metal roofing for their homes. The reviewer who declined your submission suggested that you might try to use your material to improve the article on corrugated galvanised iron. Or you might prefer working on the metal roof article. Either way, improving an existing article offers an easier way to get your material on to the encyclopedia. However, regardless of which article you choose to work on, the material will need to be referenced to reliable sources (something that you didn't do in your submission). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Arobittech (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Why my page is being rejected, I am submitting a page for the 1st time in wikipedia. Please allow me with step by step guide. Thanks

Arobittech (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Arobittech#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Danzzig (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Thumbhole Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have included some independent reviews from various blog sites on the record label, however it has been declined. I have checked other record label pages on wikipedia that all seem to be similar and don't know why a site not related to the topic would mention a record label.

Most of the blog reviews etc have all been for the later releases - so wasn't sure if the reviewer hadn't looked further down at the references for Tracks You Might Have Missed v1 for example.

Danzzig (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Danzzig: Hello, Danzzig. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best sources of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewers who looked at it. You can find their names and Talk page links in the "decline boxes" near the top of the submission. But I took a look at it myself and found that I too would have declined it, and for the same reason. Virtually all of your references merely serve to confirm the existence of albums released on your label. Furthermore, most of those sources carry no weight when assessing the subject's notability, because they are either cites to your company's website or to iTunes and Spotify. And I find myself in respectful disagreement with the reviewer who opined that the AllPunkedUp cite was helpful. A review of an album is not at all the same as an in-depth discussion of the label. Adding to that the fact that the "History" section contains no sourcing whatsoever, it becomes easy to agree with the reviewers that you haven't demonstrated notability. I'll add that you might also have done yourself a disservice by presenting the reviewers with a lengthy listing of red-linked names of albums and albums. To me, it simply suggests that your label has not really produced enough notable work to establish that the label itself is notable. I expect that you will disagree with that assessment, but that is the impression created by all of those red-linked names.

As for articles on other labels, there are more than 5 million user-generated articles here on Wikipedia and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they should not. If you're looking for examples of well-written articles on labels, take a look at some our better-quality articles such as Mr. Lady Records and Key Sounds Label.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jayantarana (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

Hi,

Please let me know why the content GameMine platform have been removed? I have added relevant links that I got from the internet. It will be great if you can guide me how to approve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayantarana (talk • contribs) 11:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayantarana. I do not understand your question. Draft:GameMine Platform was declined because it is promotional. No content was removed. Account Akash2017 is the only one that has contributed to that draft. Are you saying that you have also edited using that account? --Worldbruce (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• G Kalpana (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

G Kalpana (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Please give me suggestions to improve my article and tell me the reasons for rejection, so that i can rectify it[reply]

Hi G Kalpana. The only sources Draft:Aju Karthick cites are videos on YouTube. I assume these are works by Karthick. If so, they are primary sources and not independent of him. To demonstrate that he is notable (that he satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria), the draft would have to show significant coverage of him in multiple, indpendent, reliable, secondary sources (think books, newspapers, and magazines). --Worldbruce (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Forpr ep (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Robert Taft (chemist and author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I was informed that my submission for Robert Taft (Chemist and author) was denied because it "appears to be taken" from the text oat the following URL: http://www.kshs.org/archives/40172

While I did use that page as a cited reference, I did not plagiarize that page and didn't copy or paste any text without proper attribution.

So I'm not really sure why the submission was declined. I am quite sure the article could be improved, but as the text was not actually copied wholesale, but rather original writing based on multiple sources, I don't think the rejection is warranted or fair.

Forpr ep (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Forpr ep: Hello, Forpr. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. I've taken a look at your submission and I agree that you did not do a copy/paste job of the material. But I can see why the reviewer was concerned -- large portions of your submission are closely paraphrased from the KSHS site, using sentences that are essentially in the same order as the ones in the KSHS site with only minimal changes in wording. I suggest you open up a discussion with the reviewer to find out how much more re-writing will be needed to satisfy their concerns. You'll find the name of that reviewer, as well as a link to their Talk page, in the "decline box" near the top of your submission. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Newzealandspaceagency (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

Newzealandspaceagency (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newzealandspaceagency. If you are wondering why Draft:New Zealand Space Agency Limited was declined, it was declined because it cites no sources. To demonstrate that the company is notable (is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia), the draft should cite multiple, indpendent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the company. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alligator77002 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

Trying to create an article about a United States Copyrighted title "Ping Pong" (Copyright 1997; Anthony Charles Thomas). The title is expressed as an amusement where an object is oscillated over a linear platform until it is stopped. In essence, it is a table tennis amusement. With this title, I am not sure where to start as so many articles are published for amusements along this line. I do not want to err with Wikipedia for my title but I would like to get credit for it's creation. As well, I have numerous other titles that will not be beyond impartiality; Biorhythms, Fortune Teller, Horoscopes and Tarot to name a few.Alligator77002 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC) Alligator77002 01:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligator77002 (talk • contribs)

Hi Alligator77002. Worrying about the title is putting the cart before the horse. First gather multiple, indpendent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic you want to write about. Without such sources there will be no article.

If you draft the article in your sandbox or through the article wizard, submit it, and it is published, an Articles for creation reviewer will assign an appropriate title at that time. They may distinguish the title of your topic from Ping Pong by adding a parenthetical disambiguator with what the aforementioned sources generally call your subject. In other words, if most of them call it an amusement, they may use the title Ping Pong (amusement). --Worldbruce (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Johnbow2233 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ursula Hayden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. There is a page named "ursula hayden" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ursula_Hayden&action=edit that is under review. There are other Wikipedia's made about other GLOW girls. I know Ursula is a series consultant on GLOW Netflix etc so this page would be useful. If you could look over the page and let me know any changes you think should be made to get it approved that would be great. Thanks, John Johnbow2233 (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbow2233. Draft:Ursula Hayden is in the pool to be reviewed. The current backlog suggests that it will be reviewed by the end of the year. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Omega68537 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Xu Geyang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I use what Xu Geyang said in interviews(by well-known medias) as information in my article?And who can give me more advices to my article?I've used all the useful information that I can find, and I can't find any more information. Because of Xu Geyang is a new singer,I can't find information on books and journals yet. I know that the biggest problem with creating articles is notability, so how to use the existing information to show the notability of the subject better? ~Omega68537(talk)14:16,17 November 2017(UHC)

@Omega68537: Hello, Omega. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Yes, you can use material taken from interviews, but keep in mind that interviews represent nothing more than the subject talking about herself. And so, they can't be used as the "proof" of controversial statements about the subject. They also can't be used to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. And as you noted in your question, that's the "biggest problem" here. Simply being a contestant on a televised singing show doesn't confer encyclopedic notability. And I see nothing else in your submission that would demonstrate satisfaction with any of the criteria set forth at WP:NMUSIC. This might just be a case of "too soon for an article". I also noted that some of your statements sound a bit promotional, in some cases going beyond what the sources are actually saying. The one that caught my attention was the declaration that the subject was the most popular singer on the show, when the source simply stated that the subject came out on top of somebody's poll. If that poll is authoritative, then the thing to do is tell the reader that the subject won the poll. The thing to not do is interpret that result for the reader. But problems like this can be fixed. What is not so easy to fix will be the lack of in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources. This really does look to me like a case of WP:TOOSOON. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary:I gave up all hope for my article after I read your advice.I think it's impossible to be accepted and it may be deleted because the problem of notability.I also think my article is a case of WP:TOOSOON.So what should I do?I've used all useful information I can find.But it will be too late to resubmit my article when the problem you said can be solved(Probably many years later).So what should I do now?Should I give up for my article?I've tried my best in the article.~Omega68537(talk)01:54,18 November 2017(UHC)

@Omega68537: Hello again, Omega. My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I think that working on some other topic might be the better choice here. If you're particularly interest in the Chinese entertainment industry, there probably are plenty of existing articles in that topic that could use some improvement and I hope you'll consider contributing to Wikipedia in that fashion. But regarding your draft, there's no need to delete it. You can move it back into your User space, where it can stay until the time is right to re-submit it. If you'd like some assistance with doing that, please let us know. Thanks again for your interest in Wikipedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Noreen Banks (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Blair Aldridge Ruble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Noreen Banks (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] Above is a link to the page I created for Blair A. Ruble who is an American non-fiction author and scholar. I submitted the page for review last evening. I used a photo in the information box that he uses in his promotional materials. I think I was not clear in the credits. It is his photo which was taken by a Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars and given to him. I have an email exchange giving me permission to use this photo. I received a notice that the photo was being deleted because it violated copyright but I think the problem is that I did not understand the way to credit it. Both Mr. Ruble and The Center gave permission for it to be used in Wikipedia. I can't figure out how to get the photo back into the page and would appreciate any help you can give me. I am a first time Wikipedia author so I'm sure I just did not word the credit info correctly. Thanks so much! Noreen BanksNoreen Banks (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Noreen Banks: Hello, Noreen. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The issue doesn't appear to be simply a failure of attribution, but a failure to demonstrate that the person holding the copyright on the image has licensed it for free use on Wikipedia (and, by extension, everywhere by anybody in the world). The people who are best able to assist you are the good folks over at WP:Media copyright questions. I encourage you to ask them about it. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sonakys (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hi, I tried to submit an article in Slovak language and it was declined because it wasn't in English. I didn't intend to submit an article in English and I don't know how to change the language settings for submission. It's my first time uploading so I am very confused. Any help is greatly appreciated. Sonakys (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonakys: Hello, Sonakys. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Requesting a translation can be done at WP:PNT, although there is no guarantee that any one will actually do the translation. But before you make that request, have you noticed that we already have an article on dialysis? If your material doesn't add anything that isn't already in that article, why bother at all with a translation? NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonakys: If you're trying to create an article in the Slovak language, you'll want to do that at the Slovak Wikipedia instead of here. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Graperjl (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hi, just wanted to know if there was any feedback on why the article I recently submitted was declined? Thanks!

Graperjl (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graperjl, the feedback can be found at the top of your draft. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Boneklootch (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

An article I submitted for review today was declined because the references submitted "did not adequately show the subject's notability." I can include more press articles about Newtonville Books that would better demonstrate how the establishment serves as a indy book hub for the region. My question is: Should the references be embedded in the copy (as citations) or can I simply include them in a list below the article copy as "external links"? In other words, do I need to write sentences that I then footnote or can I simply add external links as evidence of notability? Thanks for your help.

Boneklootch (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneklootch: Hello, Boneklootch. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I see that you've already added several sources as "Further Reading". But you'll create a better article if you extract relevant information from those readings, add that information to the draft and then use the readings as in-line citations (or, to use your more succinct phrase, "write sentences that I then footnote"). By leaving all of this information as "Further Reading", you are effectively telling readers (including reviewers) that "There's more that can be said about this company, but I'm not going to say it." That might be a reasonable approach for a very large article, but that's not what we have here. Indeed, the current text of the submission tells us only that the store exists and is now located in a different place than originally, and that it has hosted book talks/signings. That's really not enough to justify an article on Wikipedia. And so, I encourage you to expand the text with suitable information that will demonstrate that the store meets our criteria for notable companies. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SaraAlsughaiyer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

SaraAlsughaiyer (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SaraAlsughaiyer: Hello, Sara. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. But you didn't actually ask a question. What is it we can help you with? NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tobi19 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

The Article was declined because its sources were not reliable but the sources cited are one of the most reliable in the country. Kindly guide on how to improve. Tobi19 (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Tobi19 (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is not reliability. The article was rejected because the independent sources cited do not include in-depth discussion of the subject. The first and fourth are directory entries. The second and third mention the subject but do not discuss it. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Selwynr (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Selwynr/Philip nikolayev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I can't seem to get the references working properly, it's been a long time since I've been here. I would really appreciate it if someone helped out with them or told me where I'm going wrong. Thanks heaps!

Selwynr (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Selwynr: I've done with the references what I think you meant. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Laramie1960 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Catherine (Juliette Benzoni) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Laramie1960 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

so my article has been moved now, instead of answering me to what I had to say about being it the second time rejected. After all the history with my article, I suppose it was a punishment for starting to argue with two moderators. But then I guess I should never have admitted that English is not my native language. My article has no political problem, I do not attack anybody, I stole no text, if I copied, I did my own work, I use no slang words, but still the article gets rejected two times. If I may say so, I would love to know why the article is now called: Catherine (1963 novel) - and not "Catherine (Juliette Benzoni)". No one will connect this article now with the author Juliette Benzoni and her first international Bestseller.

So it is only good enough for a C rating thank you very much - and I find this on the page: This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available.

So please,if there is anyone out there, who would like to support my article, please be so kind. Also, explain to me in words what is meant with "may be better presented using prose! I would appreciate it very much. Best Laramie1960 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps!

JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rachelharrisla (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Skye Nicolas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would like to ask for a re-reviewal of my article draft, on New York-based post-conceptual artist, Skye Nicolas. A previous review was declined on 19 August 2017 (by Wikipedia editor Chris troutman), as the "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability."

The current article draft focuses on the artist's 'Fukushima Nuclear Disaster tribute artwork', which made front page news in the March 31, 2011 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer is the nation's largest and premier newspaper, comparable to the New York Times in Southeast Asia. Wouldn't being on the front page of a major newspaper suffice as a substantial source to validate subject's notability? Other independent sources have been referenced, including a recent interview with Art Week magazine, an extension of the fine art world's leading publication source, Art Forum.

A re-review, as well as comments on editing the article for final approval would be very much appreciated.

Thank you.

Rachelharrisla (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rachelharrisla. Simply resubmit your draft for review, and it will be placed back in the queue. Please be patient, however, as the queue is extremely backlogged at the moment. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SajniHaswani (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

SajniHaswani (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to know why my article is not approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mumbai_Challengers can you please tell me the reasons so that I will change accordingly

@SajniHaswani: Hello, Sajni. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewer who looked at it. You can find that person's name and Talk page link in the "decline boxes" near the top of your submission. But before posting here, I took a quick look at your submission and found that I too would have declined it, for at least two reasons. First, very much of your material is unsourced. And second, much of it is not written in the neutral, formal tone that is expected on an encyclopedia. Indeed, some of it seemed like it was written for the sports pages of a newspaper. This type of writing has no place on Wikipedia. Finally, I didn't investigate the quality of your sourcing, so I'm offering no opinion as to whether this two-year old team has achieved encyclopedic notability. I encourage you to engage in discussion with the reviewer and to take into consideration the concerns that I've stated here. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Debabrata777 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

My new page request for port Connectivity Road Visakhapatnam was not accepted though it fulfilled all conditions. I just want to know to know why it was done so that my page gets created next time

Debabrata777 (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Debabrata777. Your submission, Draft:Port Connectivity Road, Visakhapatnam contained no references. Wikipedia requires all articles to have secondary, reliable sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jtoddalgami (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

Jtoddalgami (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I submitted an article and it was declined because it did not have enough references. I updated the references list, added more citations of the proposed article and resubmitted it, but its been about 2 weeks now and there hasn't been someone who reviewed it. It just needs another quick scan then I can get it up. Anyone help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bunq_(bank)

Hello, Jtoddalgami, there are over 2,000 submissions waiting right now. Please be patient as we attempt to lower the backlog. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cffg9979 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hello,

I recently submitted an article about a company, which was rejected because "it appears to read more like and advertisement than a Wikipedia entry." I'm wondering whether this needs a few tweaks or is not even close to approval, and whether any more detail can be provided about the issue. Is it the sources, is the content, is it that subject matter is undeserving of a page?

Thanks for your assistance. Cffg9979 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cffg9979: Hello, Cffg. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewer who looked at it. You can find that person's name and Talk page link in the "decline box" near the top of your submission. But I took a look at your submission before posting here and found that, out of the various possibilities suggested in your question, "undeserving of a page" looks to be the best assessment. Two of the seven references are for the company's founder, and not the company itself (I'm speaking of the award nomination and the article written by the founder). Three others are either passing mentions or appearances on a list. Another is just a routine announcement. And the last (actually, the first in your submission) is a press-release type of write-up that was published five years ago. In all, I don't see in-depth discussion of the company by reliable independent sources, and I certainly don't see that kind of coverage being given on anything approaching a sustained level. I recognize that this is a negative assessment, but it does reflect my opinion as to whether this company is sufficiently "notable" in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Vinhloc30796 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Republic (crowdfunding platform) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm writing the draft for Republic (crowdfunding platform) under COI. My most recent rejection was due to lack of neutrality in the draft. I rephrased and reordered several things, and added costs to fundraise on the platform, controversies surrounding the Crowd Safe and SAFE investment vehicle (which I think should also be added to the Simple agreement for future equity (SAFE) article). Still, I'm not sure yet about whether the neutrality in the article can be further improved, and if yes, how, hence I'm asking for re-reviewing.

@Vinhloc30796: The way to get the draft reviewed again is to click the blue "Submit" button on the draft, within the pink box from the most recent review. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Crystalhartwell (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:AutoBuy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my article keeps getting declined, first because the reviewer said it was too promotional. I edited the article, then another reviewer stated that there might be a notoriety issue, and that I should include more references. Is there a way for me to send my article to someone to review to get more feedback about specific edits that can be made so that the article will be accepted, before I submit the article using sandbox? The article is about an automotive company that is often cited in automotive trade outlets, including Automotive News which is a well respected publication.

Thanks in advance for your assistance. Crystalhartwell (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Crystalhartwell (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystalhartwell: There is no mechanism for getting feedback before submitting a draft. If by "often cited" in Automotive News you mean:

CEO Mark Maida of AutoBuy, a Florida company that buys used vehicles from consumers and resells them to dealers nationwide, said used-vehicle demand didn't pick up much until October, but now it is strong. He expects AutoBuy's shipments to dealers in Texas and Florida to peak in late October. "Pickups and SUVs are the hottest segments," Maida said. [2]

and the like, such material does nothing to establish notability. It isn't independent, it's the CEO talking about the company. Based on my own searches, the company does not appear to be a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not for promotion, marketing, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WidgetFan1234 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Why was my article declined???????? WidgetFan1234 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WidgetFan1234:. In short, because it cites no sources!!!!!!!! A more complete explanation is on the draft and on your talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcjport (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I want to create a brief page about my professional standing; both as a mechanism to demonstrate online content and reputation development competencies, and to secondarily assist in managing my own reputation. I imagine others have done this and I of course want to abide by all relevant and applicable best practices. Please advise on the best course of action/next steps. I know your time is valuable and I know how important Wikipedia is as a public resource and service; I am very grateful for your guidance.

Marc

Marcjport (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcjport: Best practice, best course of action? It's pretty simple, don't write about yourself. Wikipedia is not Facebook or LinkedIn, and is not to be used to manage your own reputation.

WP:BFAQ#COMPANY is written about organizations and companies, but applies equally well to individuals. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ife1599 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jordan Loughran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ife (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC) i dont know how to cite and a page needs it[reply]

Hello, Ife1599, please see WP:Referencing for beginners for basic information on referencing. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ife1599. It looks like you tried copying a reference from another article. That can work, but you have to be on the "edit source" tab of the article you're copying from rather than on the "read" tab. I've redone the first citation in a recommended way, and left the second citation for you to fix as an exercise. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reka Moksony (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:CodeBeamer ALM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi All,

Thank you for the feedback to my article codeBeamer ALM draft. Hereby I need your feedback if I understood well the improvement proposals. This external link at Infoq was found very useful to explain the content therefore I would integrate an outline of it into the article: https://www.infoq.com/articles/alm-safety-critical . I found further great sources to improve the article: https://www.infoq.com/articles/tool-integration-hard-truth - that refers well to Tasktop and API based integration of ALM to the toolchain.. which is also in the upfront development of codeBeamer ALM, therefore this content can be also integrated in a section : "ALM/development Toolchain integration"- via APIs or Integration Hubs. Further content for consideration: https://www.infoq.com/articles/evaluation-alm-software - which talks about ROI issues of ALM.

Can you please confirm those sources could lead to improve my article?

Thanks Reka

@Reka Moksony: Hello, Reka. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I must confess that I'm a bit puzzled by the suggestion that the "Safety Critical" article will make a useful addition to your submission's sourcing. That article appears to be a discussion of application lifecycle management (ALM) in general, whereas your submission is intended to be about one particular software product that might be used in that field. It seems to me that whatever material can be usefully gleaned from the "Safety Critical" article ought to be added to our ALM article, and not to your submission (and this is especially so given that the article is written by the founder of the company that developed this particular software application). I have the same concerns with the other articles linked in your question here -- none of them appear to be giving in-depth discussion to your particular product. But maybe I'm missing something and you might get a more helpful response from the reviewer who made the suggestion. You can find that person's name and Talk page link in the "decline box" near the top of your submission. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Adarshpadukone (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Adarshpadukone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tried many times to submit a page sub reviewers are declining my submission

Adarshpadukone (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adarshpadukone, you recieved the message DO NOT RESUBMIT twice. Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook. This is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please stop resubmitting it. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Shriya Sheetal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Shriya Sheetal/sandbox/Apps Discover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Shriya Sheetal (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shriya Sheetal: Hello, Shriya. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Did you have a specific question? NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A.w.i.au (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I am new to creating contents on Wikipedia, so I am not very well-versed as other users. Since the decline of the first draft, I have made some revisions on "Health Ecosystem". Would you please kindly give me some feedback on what to improve?

Thanks! A.w.i.au (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A.w.i.au, the best way to ask for feedback is to resubmit your draft and await review from a reviewer. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Luminum (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I am not familiar with Wikipedia's new policy restricting new users from directly creating articles. After overhauling a previously deleted page, I inadvertently submitted it to draft, but based on my experience as an editor, believe that the article is sufficient to go directly to article space (though review is always appreciated). Since draft review is so backlogged, and I feel the article is sufficient as is, and any other issues can be handled via page tags, I'd like to remove it from draft review. Is there a formal process for doing so? Am I in violation of any policies if I directly move the article to article space via the article wizard? Thanks!Luminum (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Luminum (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Luminum: Hello, Luminum. You appear to be permitted to create articles directly in Main space, and there is no requirement that you continue to participate in the Articles for Creation process. If you'd like to have this moved into Main space, I'll be happy to do that for you. Be aware, however, that it will NOT be logged as an article "accepted" by us. But if that's not a concern, I'll be happy to move the page on your behalf. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ErinD22 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kevin M. Nagle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Many different sources were used to draft this Wikipedia entry, including the one from Select Sacramento. There was no copying and pasting, although many details are the same since they are biographical. We are submitting this on behalf of Kevin and can likely get permission from Select Sacramento if there is a copyright issue. I'd like to know more about next steps so we can get this live.

Thank you ErinD22 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC) ErinD22 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ErinD22: Hello, Erin. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. There are two things you might try. First, you can talk to the good folks over at WP:Copyright problems to find out how to get a suitable license for the material. Or, you can contact the reviewer who declined your draft and discuss how their concerns can be addressed. You'll find the reviewer's name and Talk page link in the "decline box" near the top of your submission. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Katcrowe (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John Vanderpant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have three issues:

(1) How does one insert the template for the information box into an existing draft?

(2) How does one get the proper formatting for the lead into an existing draft? Is there a template?

(3) I have my "Citations" heading appearing last in my submission. I have my "External Links" heading appearing second to last. I wish to have my "External Links" as the last heading. I cannot seem to switch these two heading. How is this accomplished?

Thank you for your assistance in advance.

Sincerely,

Katcrowe

Katcrowe (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Katcrowe: Hello, Kat. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I took care of the lede and the reference section for you. As for the information box, you'll probably want to use either {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox artist}}. Clicking on these links will give you instructions on how to use them. I hope this is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Chockguzell (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

The article was declined on the grounds that the page already exists. There are 3 other articles on someone called Artemidorus but these are not the same people as Artemidorus of Knidos (there was someone called Artemidorus of Ephesus, who was also around in the 1st century BCE). From my reading of the instructions I thought I should not try and disambiguate this myself. How should I resubmit yet make clear that the article is about another person called Artemidorus? Chockguzell (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chockguzell. I'd just go ahead and re-submit your article, as the reviewer was mistaken in thinking that these people were the same. I'll leave a comment to reviewers on that page noting that they are not the same. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 23:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ajdeluca4 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Romeo Langford (basketball) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I recently submitted the article above and it was not accepted. I was a little confused as to why it was not accepted and any suggestions on improvements I could make would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. Ajdeluca4 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajdeluca4: Hello, AJ. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. The best source of information as to why your submission was declined will be the reviewer who looked at it. You can find that person's name and Talk page link in the "decline box" near the top of the submission. But I took a quick look at it and I think I know what the reviewer meant when mentioning WP:TOOSOON -- although this high-school athlete probably doesn't meet the criteria set forth in WP:NHOOPS just yet, he probably will meet them eventually (at which point an article here would be appropriate). But I encourage you to confirm this with the reviewer. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User457b (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hi Hamtechperson, Thanks for reviewing my submission on "Ammar Ahmad". Just a question on this. I'm going to change the content into more formal and neutral tone. Do I have to change the sources as well?

Regards, User457b

User457b (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mitchmedina (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

I'm trying to write a Wikipedia article about myself. I've led an interesting life, but there is no published work about it.

I've written 4 Christian books, but they are not really germane to my life's story. I'm writing an autobiography, but it's a work-in-progress, and hasn't been published.

I have 30 U.S. Patents, and I suppose that I can cite them as references. But once again, they do not illuminate my personal life.

What should I do next?

Mitchmedina (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Newamsterdam2017 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

Dear Wikipedia,

As a new editor I would like to add more pages about ongoing developments in my town Amsterdam. A growing trend in Amsterdam is the changing pattern of consumption towards conscious consuming. More and more organizations are part of this growing trend. I wanted to add the Aesthetic Stories organization, but found this article was declined. I was therefore wondering: how could I improve the article? I have already added a few primary and secondary sources.

Looking forward to hear from you,

Kind regards,

Wais

Newamsterdam2017 (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hawkeyedeep (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:==Heading text== Dr.Lal Bahadur Prasad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hawkeyedeep (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC) I want to add image in my new article from android but i don't know how to do it.[reply]

• SciFive (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:SciFive/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I translated a page about the Journal of Magnetic Resonance, from the French edition of Wikipedia into English and when I submitted it for review, it was rejected for failing to establish the notability of the journal. My question is: do different language editions of Wikipedia have different criteria to accept articles? While doing the translation, I added some references and updated some out-of-date information but from what the reviewer wrote it seems that I should write the page from scratch. There is no doubt in my mind that the Journal of Magnetic Resonance should have a page in Wikipedia since it is one of the leading scientific journals in its field (MRI,nuclear magnetic resonance, etc.). Your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks--SciFive (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SciFive. Yes, the different Wikipedias do have different criteria. I don't know anything about the French Wikipedia's but, as I understand it, here at enwiki we're on the strict side.

We have specific criteria for the inclusion of journals at WP:NJOURNALS. Perhaps Sulfurboy was not aware of them, because I think JMR quite clearly passes them – it has a JCR impact factor and many highly cited papers. I will go ahead and accept your draft now. – Joe (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]